“The Psychology Of Evil”
Warm Up

Set up chapter 18 table of contents
Questions to be Addressed
Can
good, ordinary people
be transformed into
monsters or perpetrators of
evil?
Are there certain
psychological factors that
can help facilitate this
transformation?
Sabrina Harman-student that
graduated from Fairfax County Public
Schools who took AP Psychology.
Dispositional vs. Situational
Fundamental Attribution Error: social
psychological theory that maintains people
explain others behavior by overestimating
the impact of internal disposition and
underestimating the impact of situational
influences.
 Dispositional Example: those who took part
in the Abu Ghraib abuse were sadists or prone
to abusive tendencies.
 Situational Example: external influences
and the social environment mostly explains
the abuse that took place at Abu Ghraib.

Social Thinking

How we explain someone’s behavior affects how
we react to it
Situational attribution
“Maybe that driver is ill.”
Tolerant reaction
(proceed cautiously, allow
driver a wide berth)
Dispositional attribution
“Crazy driver!”
Unfavorable reaction
(speed up and race past the
other driver, give a dirty look)
Negative behavior
Diffusion of Responsibility
 Diffusion
of Responsibility is a social
phenomenon which tends to occur in
groups of people above a certain critical
size when responsibility is not explicitly
assigned.
 Examples:
 Bystander
Apathy: less likely to help
emergency victim when many people around.
 “Just following orders”—happens in
hierarchy
 Firing Squads: only one has bullet.
Group Pressure and Conformity
Conformity: means to adjust your
behavior to fit in with a group.
 Solomon’s Asch’s study illustrated the
power of group influence and
conformity.

Obedience to Authority
 Stanley
Milgram’s study is most
famous for illustrating the powerful
situational influence of authority.
 Study completed in 1963. Milgram
created the study in part because
of his Jewish heritage.
 “If Hitler asked you, would you
execute a stranger?”
Milgram’s Obediance Study
Participants are told they are participating
in a study based on the effects of
punishment on learning behavior.
 3 Basic People in Study:

 Participant:
teacher who will read word pairs
to the “student.”
 Student: actor that will be shocked if answers
incorrectly.
 Experimenter: authority figure in lab coat
that instructs the participant what to do.
Milgram’s Experimental Design

The range of electrical shocks had 30
variables ranging from mild shock (15
volts) to Danger Severe Shock and
XXX (450 Volts).
Milgram’s Obedience Study
Major Question: how many people would inflict the
maximum voltage on the “learner?”
 Prior to the experiment, psychologists believed fewer
than 1% would inflict maximum damage.


Actual Results:
 65%
of participants gave “learner” maximum
shock despite feelings of discomfort, no participant
stopped prior to 300 volt level.
 In studies compliance was as high as 90% and as
low as 10% depending on the variables used.
The Power of Obedience: How?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Start with an Ideology---purpose is to help
science find better ways of learning.
Use authority to legitimate ideology---Yale
experimenter.
Give people desirable roles with meaningful
status---teacher
Have rules that channel behavioral options
and agree to them before “game” begins--explanation of experiment and purpose.
Have initial harmful act be minimal and
subsequent acts escalate gradually---moves
from slight shock gradually to severe…foot in
the door phenomenon.
The Power of Obedience: How?
6.
7.
8.
Displace responsibility for
consequences on authority---Experimenter
explains he is liable to the “teacher.”
Put Actors in a novel setting they are
not used to---laboratory
Don’t allow usual forms of dissent to lead
to disobedience---encouraged to follow
agreement. “It is absolutely essential
that you continue.”
Factors which Influenced
Compliance in Milgram’s Study
Obedience highest when:
-person giving orders is close at
hand.
-authority figure is supported by
prestigious institution.
-victim is depersonalized and
in another room.
-there are no role models for
defiance.
Deindividuation

Deindividuation: the loss of selfawareness and self-restraint
occurring in group situations that
foster arousal and anonymity.
 Women dressed in depersonalizing
outfits or masks delivered higher
levels of shocks than those who
were identifiable.
 Some argue the process involved
in creating soldiers in the military
involves deindividuation.
Dehumanization
 Dehumanization:
the
ability to view the
victims of violence as
somehow less than
human.
 Humans
find it easier
to inflict and rationalize
violence against victims
who seem less than
human.
Bandura’s Dehumanization Experiments
1.
Group of college students were to help
train other visiting college students using
shocks when they erred.
Participants overhear 1 of 3 statements:
Neutral: the subjects from the other school
2.
Humanized: the subjects from the other


3.
are here.
school are here and they seem nice.
Dehumanized: the subjects from the other
school are here and they seem like animals.
Results: escalated aggression toward
dehumanized labeled individuals.
Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison
Experiment
Ordinary college students were
randomly divided into groups of
“prisoners” and “guards.”
 “Prisoners” were “arrested” in
their homes by real policemen,
strip searched, deloused and put
into a “jail” created in the
basement of the Stanford
Psychology Department.


Deindividuation and
Dehumanization In Stanford Prison
Experiment
Prisoners:
 Referred
to only as a number
 Wore ill-fitting smocks without
underwear
 Wore nylon panty-hose over
head to simulate shaved
head.
 Wore small chain around ankle
to remind them of their
imprisonoment.
Deindividuation and
Dehumanization in Stanford
Prison Experiments

Guards:
 Wore
military style uniform,
carried wooden baton
 Given reflective sunglasses
to avoid eye contact.
 Only referred to prisoners
by their numbers.
Results of Experiment





Role Playing affected both groups attitudes.
After a revolt on the 2nd day, “Prison Guards”
became more and more sadistic in enforcing
the law.
“Prisoners” broke down and became more
obedient.
“Guards” most sadistic when thought
experimenters were not watching them.
Experiment eventually had to be ended early.
Modern Comparison? US soldiers
involvement in Abu Ghraib
How might social factors have
influenced “ordinary”
perpetrators in Nazi Germany?